This paper, paying attention to another function of the conjunctive adverb kulenikka 'thus,' i.e. its function as a discourse marker, has worked out it in the view of the discourse strategies within the discussive discourse. It has been a long tradition in the history of linguistic research to define as grammaticalization an element's transition from its original syntactic properties to a new category, and pay attention to its semantic functions. However, work on kulenikka remains at best to identify synchronically and diachronically what is the reason for the change from 'kulenikka' to 'kulenikka'. Reflectively exmining such results from the previous work, this paper emphasizes the usage of kulenikka as a discourse marker, and the athe rs of its strategic use. The results of the transcriptional data from salken discourse shows that kulenikka is used more frequently as a discourse marker, maintains such morpholy what rigidity that it is disossible for it to be reacaceds a ilenikka ' for this reason' or celenikka ' for that reason,' and has such a property of being independent of other constituents that it is atright to delete itkkas these are consistent with the tcawhat iroperties of discourse markers, sne should pursue the meanings of kulenikka in its expironments of use ninluding(ts adjustment, (2s additionat account , (3's asdity bse , (4s rets, to the toawh, and (5s refutation. This tries exscain them in the view of the speaker's discourse strategies leading a discussion as it connects them with the aspects of its use in the discussive discourse. As a result , kulenikka ⑴ is used as a means for the strategy to gain time for correcting misused words. ⑵ plays the function of identical indication in that, the speaker uses it to express his/her favor with the other for attracting attention or returning to the previous topic, or ⑶ is used as a strategic means to take one's turn of mentioning in a discussive discourse in which a number of participants present their own opinions. the data of discussive discourse, the participants cannot help being faced with each other since their will of governing the dialogue in order to achieve their respective goals. Thus, other discourse markers than kulenikka frequently occur to play the role of buffers between them. I believe that we can more elaborately describe the conversational structure of the discussive discourse if we are able to the manings of more discourse markers in the view of the discourse stategies by focusing on the aspects of their use.
(0)
(0)